Editorial: Ruling makes a dent in supersize soda law

A New York judge threw out New York City Mayor Michael Bloombergís infamous ban on supersize soda on grounds that it was arbitrary imposed.

His ruling didnít strike a great blow for freedom of choice.

Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling said the law applies only to some sugary beverages and only to some places that sell them. He added that the New York City Council, not the Board of Health, should have imposed it.

The Bloomberg administration will appeal.

Many restaurants had already started to comply, providing smaller glasses for sugary pop and even providing fruit juices.

The law was ahead of its time, but not by much.

The supersize soda law wouldnít have prevented New Yorkers from ingesting huge quantities of sugared pop. It would have made it a little more expensive, requiring a little extra commitment to order more than one.

Americans are becoming sensitized to the impact of obesity and poor food choices on a host of ills we bring to ourselves and our kids.

And even those who decried the law, insisting on their right to make bad choices, would probably support many of the requirements our nannyish federal, state and local government place on us.

While we have the choice, for example, to drive a car with bad brakes and bald tires, we donít have the choice to buy a car without turn signals, safety restraints or air bags. We may make unsafe changes to the gas line or electrical circuits in our home, but we donít have the choice to buy a new home with unsafe gas lines or electrical systems.

We still have the freedom to smoke tobacco products we know may cause our death if we continue, but we pay enough for that freedom of choice to make users think twice.

Michigan motorcycle riders can now ride without head protection. Score that one for freedom of choice.

The point is that we depend on our nanny, like it or not. She makes some of us angry when she gets too nitpicky, until we grow up a little and realize she was probably right.